Heat pumps are efficient at very low temperatures now, and are suitable for the vast majority of homes.
However, in the literal Arctic you probably will need an additional heat source. This could be resistive electric, but tbh so few people live that far north that I'd be fine with them using fossil fuels. Their emissions would be a rounding error on a global scale.
If we want to completely ban fossil fuels then biomass could be another option for the Arctic in winter.
They may be the biggest installer of renewable energy, but what percentage of their electricity comes from renewables? If they're installing more coal than renewables then it's still not better.
They're also deploying coal faster than anyone else.
I've heard this argument before about the efficiency of burning centrally, usually in a European context to defend running EVs on a grid powered mostly by natural gas, but not for coal.
Now I'm genuinely curious whether efficiently burning coal to power EVs is less bad for the environment than burning petrol in ICE cars. Is there any research on that?
I agree that ultimately EVs are the future, and I do drive one myself and strive to charge it on renewables whenever possible. However, in places with dirtier grids I'm not sure they're a great idea.
Well, that's not ideal, but the oil and gas platforms have to be powered by something. They'll exist either way, but without these turbines they'd be powered by oil and gas.
Power demand is power demand. If we get all precious about who can use our wind power, they're not just gonna go "ok, I guess we'll shut down these oil rigs" 🤷♂️
Ah yes, those who produce food and medicine should not be paid, of course.
All this does is guarantee a Trump win. The right aren't staying home. They're voting.
Ffs grow a backbone.
The Tories are going to attack you. They're your opposition, it's their job.
Decide your position and then defend it. Everyone hates this weasely politics.
Greys. Sports. Almanac.
Heat pumps are efficient at very low temperatures now, and are suitable for the vast majority of homes.
However, in the literal Arctic you probably will need an additional heat source. This could be resistive electric, but tbh so few people live that far north that I'd be fine with them using fossil fuels. Their emissions would be a rounding error on a global scale.
If we want to completely ban fossil fuels then biomass could be another option for the Arctic in winter.
Could potentially be a legit use for CCS I guess. If it worked. Needs to get better first.
Although, if this displaces coal on the grid, I guess it's a step in the right direction?
It's not renewable but it is fossil free.
Americans make the worst tea. Cold and salty.
I actually do have seven bins.
Monmouthshire.
I use Mail-in-a-Box on a VM at home. Static IP from my ISP. Been working well for years now. I recommend it.
If your IP isn't trusted you could always use an SMTP relay somewhere else.
🎶Anyone can see 🎶
Good.
They may be the biggest installer of renewable energy, but what percentage of their electricity comes from renewables? If they're installing more coal than renewables then it's still not better.
They're also deploying coal faster than anyone else.
I've heard this argument before about the efficiency of burning centrally, usually in a European context to defend running EVs on a grid powered mostly by natural gas, but not for coal.
Now I'm genuinely curious whether efficiently burning coal to power EVs is less bad for the environment than burning petrol in ICE cars. Is there any research on that?
I agree that ultimately EVs are the future, and I do drive one myself and strive to charge it on renewables whenever possible. However, in places with dirtier grids I'm not sure they're a great idea.
I like Mailinabox
You can use it in the cloud or fully self-host on your own hardware if you want. (Assuming your ISP allows this)
Yes, this is vitally important. Switching from petrol to EVs will be a net negative for the environment if all that energy comes from burning coal.
They have to clean up their grid, which unfortunately isn't happening at the moment. They're building new coal plants.
Well, that's not ideal, but the oil and gas platforms have to be powered by something. They'll exist either way, but without these turbines they'd be powered by oil and gas.
Power demand is power demand. If we get all precious about who can use our wind power, they're not just gonna go "ok, I guess we'll shut down these oil rigs" 🤷♂️